EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW
Inhoudsopgave
CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT..............................................................................6
ENGLISH LAW......................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 2................................................................................................................................................7
US LAW.............................................................................................................................................7
DECISION: SC MINNESOTA...........................................................................................................................7
NY CASE....................................................................................................................................................8
SWITZERLAND.....................................................................................................................................8
NUSSBERGER CASE.......................................................................................................................................8
GERMAN LAW.....................................................................................................................................8
FRANCE.............................................................................................................................................8
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................9
BELGIUM...........................................................................................................................................9
ITALY................................................................................................................................................9
DENMARK........................................................................................................................................10
NEDERLAND......................................................................................................................................10
HOFLAND CASE.........................................................................................................................................10
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................10
YUGOSLAVIA.....................................................................................................................................10
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS........................................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................................................11
CASE STUDY 2: CONDITIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF CONTRACT.................................................12
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................12
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................12
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................12
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................12
BEFORE THE REFORM OF 2016....................................................................................................................12
SINCE THE REFORM OF 2016......................................................................................................................13
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................13
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................13
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................14
QUEBEC...........................................................................................................................................14
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................14
1
,SCOTLAND........................................................................................................................................15
USA...............................................................................................................................................15
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................15
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................16
CASE STUDY 3: REVOCATION OF OFFERS.........................................................................................17
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................17
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................17
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................17
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................17
BEFORE REFORM.......................................................................................................................................18
SINCE REFORM 2016.................................................................................................................................18
BELGIUM: AFTER THE REFORM..............................................................................................................18
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................18
ENGELAND AND WALES.......................................................................................................................18
ROUTLEDGE V. GRANT...............................................................................................................................18
CRITICISM OF THIS SOLUTION.......................................................................................................................19
US.................................................................................................................................................19
LOUISIANA...............................................................................................................................................20
FEDERAL COURT DECISION...........................................................................................................................20
CISG + UNIDROIT...........................................................................................................................20
PECL..............................................................................................................................................21
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................21
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................21
CASE STUDY 5: THE BATTLE OF FORMS............................................................................................22
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................22
CRUTCHLEY..............................................................................................................................................22
BUTLER MACHINE......................................................................................................................................22
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................23
CIVIL CODE..............................................................................................................................................23
COMMERCIAL CODE...................................................................................................................................23
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................23
THE NETHERLANDS.............................................................................................................................24
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................24
CENTRAL EUROPE...............................................................................................................................25
RUSSIA............................................................................................................................................25
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................25
USA...............................................................................................................................................25
CISG..............................................................................................................................................25
BGH: MILKPOWDER CASE..........................................................................................................................26
US PENNSYLVANIA....................................................................................................................................26
2
,THE HAGUE PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................26
CASE STUDY 4: MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS...............................................................................27
UK.................................................................................................................................................27
USA...............................................................................................................................................28
CASE: SC RHODE ISLAND............................................................................................................................28
MELVIN EISENBERG...................................................................................................................................29
CASE STUDY 6: RIGHT TO RECEIVE PERFORMANCE OR (ONLY) RIGHT TO DAMAGES?.....................31
CISG..............................................................................................................................................31
QUEBEC, NL, FIN, DK, IT....................................................................................................................31
GERMAN LAW...................................................................................................................................31
OWNER OF A PAINTING..............................................................................................................................31
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................31
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................32
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................32
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................32
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................32
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................33
FR..........................................................................................................................................................33
DE.........................................................................................................................................................33
PORTUGAL.......................................................................................................................................34
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................34
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................34
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................34
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................34
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................35
STANDARD PACKAGING MACHINES................................................................................................................35
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................36
USA...............................................................................................................................................36
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................36
CASE STUDY 7: DAMAGES AND THE ROLE OF FAULT........................................................................38
BELGIUM AND FRANCE........................................................................................................................38
BELGIUM.................................................................................................................................................38
FRANCE...................................................................................................................................................38
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................39
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................39
CASE SUPREME COURT...............................................................................................................................40
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................41
COFRUMI CASE.........................................................................................................................................41
3
,NL.................................................................................................................................................41
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................41
BAXENDALE CASE......................................................................................................................................41
THOMAS BINGHAM...................................................................................................................................42
USA...............................................................................................................................................42
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................42
CISG..............................................................................................................................................42
PECL..............................................................................................................................................43
CASE STUDY 9: TERMINATION OR ALTERATION OF A CONTRACT IN THE EVENT OF A FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES?........................................................................................................45
EU DIRECTIVE ON PACKAGE TRAVEL.......................................................................................................45
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................45
DECISION ON EARTHQUAKE IN MEXICO..........................................................................................................46
AMTSGERICHT DACHAU CASE (TSUNAMI CASE)...............................................................................................46
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................47
CASE 11/09/2001...................................................................................................................................47
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................48
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................48
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................48
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.........................................................................................................................49
BOSNIA, SLOVENIA, SERBIA.........................................................................................................................49
CROATIA, MONTENEGRO...........................................................................................................................49
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................49
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................49
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................50
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................50
CANAL DE CRAPONNE CASE.........................................................................................................................50
CODE CIVIL: AFTER 2016 REFORM................................................................................................................50
RAPPORT AU PRÉSIDENT.............................................................................................................................50
CASE 1998..............................................................................................................................................50
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................51
ENGLAND + WALES............................................................................................................................51
TAYLOR V. CALDWELL................................................................................................................................51
KRELL V. HENRY........................................................................................................................................51
OUR CASE................................................................................................................................................51
WATERWORKS CASE..................................................................................................................................52
PECL..............................................................................................................................................52
DCFR.............................................................................................................................................52
UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................52
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................52
CASE STUDY 10: CONTRACTS AN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN MOVABLE PROPERTY.............53
4
,CISG..............................................................................................................................................53
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................53
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................53
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................54
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................54
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................55
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................55
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................56
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................56
SOUTH AFRICA..................................................................................................................................56
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................57
SWISS SC................................................................................................................................................57
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................58
NL.................................................................................................................................................58
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................58
ROMAN LAW....................................................................................................................................58
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................59
HC QB DEVISION DECISION.........................................................................................................................59
CASE STUDY 11: THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CROSS-BORDER CONTRACTS .........................................61
CISG..............................................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF A DE COURT......................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF AN EN COURT....................................................................................................................62
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................62
USA...............................................................................................................................................63
THE PARTIES’ CHOICE OF THE APPLICABLE SALES LAW..................................................................................63
THE CHOICE OF NON-STATE RULES OR “PRINCIPLES” OF LAW........................................................................65
ROME I...................................................................................................................................................65
CASE STUDY 12: THE FUTURE OF ECL...............................................................................................66
THE EU’S ROLE IN THE HARMONISATION OF ECL.......................................................................................66
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE EU TO ENACT A EUROPEAN CONTRACT CODE...............................................66
USA...............................................................................................................................................69
5
,CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT
College 19/03
Scenario: p. 55
ENGLISH LAW
DECISION 1
High Court = Court of first instance
We start with a case bc private law is not codified in England contract law remains largely
uncodified case law
This case deals with exposition of goods (flip knife) in shop window
Starting point = criminal statute did he offer the flip knife for sale by putting it in his window?
Very detailed exposure of the facts
Legal issue: exhibition of knife = offer for sale within the statute?
Literal interpretation of statute = starting point
Conclusion judge: in ordinary language it is for sale, but any statute must be looked at in the light of
the general law of the country
Method of interpretation of weapon act: literal interpretation + general contract law legislator put
in “offer for sale” and not “exposure for sale” but didn’t the legislator intend to prohibit putting
knives in the shop next step on the condiment: go into the purpose of the statute = no putting
knives in the shop window
P. 67: strong language (“absurd”)
Casus omissus: forgot to put in exposure
Can we fill the gap? No reluctant bc criminal statute
Judge turns to precedent (p 67 middle)
Bound by previous judgements: case of Keaton and Howard
o Judge decided that there was exposure + offering for sale
o question: why is our court not bound by this?
o Bound by ratio decidendae, not by obiter dictum
o ratio decidendae (reason that carries the decision) here = enough to say there was
exposure (= pillar decision)
o the fact that the court said there was an offer = obiter dictum
o conclusion: putting things in the shop window =/= an offer, but just an invitation to
making an offer
6
,They work with precedents: that’s why details are so important in giving the facts, bc you need to
find really similar case
CONCLUSION: the exposure of goods in the shop window would be considered as an invitation to
treat
DECISION 2
Pharmaceutical society
Self-service introduced in supermarkets
In this case: drugs exposed admin statute: forbidden to offer drugs for sale without supervision of
pharmacist pharmacist at cash desk
Is exposure of goods in shelves an offer or an invitation to treat?
If offer: statute violated
If ITT: not violated
When does the property in the goods pass: when the contract is formed judges: when putting it in
the trolley = too early
3rd contract maw argument (p70): English contract law: all invitations
US LAW
50 states
Federal US contract law? The union doesn’t have competence in contract law left to the states
50 systems of contract law, but not totally fragmented
Question US law restatement = they put the content in a black letter rule provide official
commentary references to court decisions coming from different states = first guidance
Same in Europe: compare ECL systems draw conclusions put them in a restatement
Very general rule: … =/= offer … super abstract + general official comment: it is possible to
make it an offer (communication: language of commitment)
DECISION: SC MINNESOTA
Advertisement: 1st come 1st serve
Products for ladies not meant for men
Man tried to buy it: ‘didn’t say it was not for men, I buy’
Is advertisement an offer? Language of commitment yes
Be careful: this is just Minnesota
7
,NY CASE
If we don’t make it an offer what else could it be?
Alt option: consumer protection rules: if advertisement is misleading may claim damages
= common law in a nutshell
SWITZERLAND
SW has codifications
Code of obligations = base look at this first
Conclusion of contract requires…
Our scenario: explicitly codified display of goods = offer; if customer says ‘I buy’, contract is
concluded
NUSSBERGER CASE
Ring exposed in shop window sales person forgot to put 1 of the 0s in the price customer
walked in and said ‘I buy’ it is bought
Avoiding contract by error?
Expose = offer
What about advertisements? Art. 7 code of obligations
Offer under Swiss law?
Not an offer under art. 7.2
Commentary: 7.1 harder to argue
Arguments: put it in red!! ‘as in other countries’ arguments for opposite solution
GERMAN LAW
(Why are job offers regarded as invitations to treat only? Employer wants to see the person he will
hire and talk to the person first)
BGB
Coded provision = starting point need to go into case law
Reasoning judgement: prevailing view
FRANCE
8
,French civil code
Provision are general need case law
DECISION 1
1 sentence: facts, history proceedings, arguments, decision why all in 1 sentence? La juge est la
bouche de la loi no margin of interpretation (French revolution: minimize the importance of
legislative reform) they kept the appearance of having no margin of interpretation: that’s why
they still use this style
Facts case
Question: was a contract formed?
Reasoning previous court quoted (Nancy): ‘an offering…treat’ rejected claim buyer to get the deal
done
‘Whereas…’: the court decides to annul decision of Cour d’appel de Nancy
Cour de Cassation: why is it not an offer?
CoA had a problem with fact that there was only 1 piece of land ‘cannot be treated as an offer’
How do they deal with problem of multiple acceptances: first come first serve first sentence (‘vis à
vis 1st person that accepts it’) Cass: it hasn’t been sold yet
Advertisement may as well be an offer
BELGIUM
Historic moment: introduction
French: start reforming their code BE has decided to put into force the first genuine civil law code
(new)
The new books come into force one book after the other and replace the old ones
(Still) similar to France
Advertisements, goods in shop windows = all offers, except when we find a reservation
ITALY
Similar to BE: first codice civile close to FR model
1942: merge FR and DE law in a modern code
Code = starting point, but also look at case law
9
, Bonus of having a code: even if it’s very general: it tells you a little bit about the intention of the
legislator + starting point + the code structures the legal material commentary: directs you to
relevant case law
DE civil code assumed to be the most sophisticated structure CC (IT) similar
Answer to our scenario: advertisements = general invitations to treat; offers, display of goods =
general offers
DENMARK
They don’t have a codifications special laws
Contract law act
Answer to 1 of the problems we have dealt with (argument of UK judge: buyer can change their mind
so contract isn’t formed): exposure of goods = an offer, while the UK judge said it wasn’t DK: yes;
IT: yes answer: contract is formed and offer is accepted when he puts the good(s) at cash desk
NEDERLAND
Something is different
HOFLAND CASE
‘I want to sell, but not to you’ was the advertisement an offer?
NL law: it depends on the object = different solution
Specific good offered for sale = invitation to treat
Offer a good that you have in stock (goods still available) = offer
Why the difference? You don’t have a problem running out of stock
When you offer a specific good, you might want to negotiate (e.g. a house)
POLAND
?
YUGOSLAVIA
Swiss approach
Particularity: 256 section 2
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
Make a table per country with the options to solve our problem
10
Inhoudsopgave
CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT..............................................................................6
ENGLISH LAW......................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................6
DECISION 2................................................................................................................................................7
US LAW.............................................................................................................................................7
DECISION: SC MINNESOTA...........................................................................................................................7
NY CASE....................................................................................................................................................8
SWITZERLAND.....................................................................................................................................8
NUSSBERGER CASE.......................................................................................................................................8
GERMAN LAW.....................................................................................................................................8
FRANCE.............................................................................................................................................8
DECISION 1................................................................................................................................................9
BELGIUM...........................................................................................................................................9
ITALY................................................................................................................................................9
DENMARK........................................................................................................................................10
NEDERLAND......................................................................................................................................10
HOFLAND CASE.........................................................................................................................................10
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................10
YUGOSLAVIA.....................................................................................................................................10
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS........................................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................................................11
CASE STUDY 2: CONDITIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF CONTRACT.................................................12
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................12
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................12
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................12
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................12
BEFORE THE REFORM OF 2016....................................................................................................................12
SINCE THE REFORM OF 2016......................................................................................................................13
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................13
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................13
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................14
QUEBEC...........................................................................................................................................14
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................14
1
,SCOTLAND........................................................................................................................................15
USA...............................................................................................................................................15
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................15
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................16
CASE STUDY 3: REVOCATION OF OFFERS.........................................................................................17
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................17
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................17
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................17
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................17
BEFORE REFORM.......................................................................................................................................18
SINCE REFORM 2016.................................................................................................................................18
BELGIUM: AFTER THE REFORM..............................................................................................................18
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................18
ENGELAND AND WALES.......................................................................................................................18
ROUTLEDGE V. GRANT...............................................................................................................................18
CRITICISM OF THIS SOLUTION.......................................................................................................................19
US.................................................................................................................................................19
LOUISIANA...............................................................................................................................................20
FEDERAL COURT DECISION...........................................................................................................................20
CISG + UNIDROIT...........................................................................................................................20
PECL..............................................................................................................................................21
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................21
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................21
CASE STUDY 5: THE BATTLE OF FORMS............................................................................................22
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................22
CRUTCHLEY..............................................................................................................................................22
BUTLER MACHINE......................................................................................................................................22
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................23
CIVIL CODE..............................................................................................................................................23
COMMERCIAL CODE...................................................................................................................................23
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................23
THE NETHERLANDS.............................................................................................................................24
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................24
CENTRAL EUROPE...............................................................................................................................25
RUSSIA............................................................................................................................................25
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................25
USA...............................................................................................................................................25
CISG..............................................................................................................................................25
BGH: MILKPOWDER CASE..........................................................................................................................26
US PENNSYLVANIA....................................................................................................................................26
2
,THE HAGUE PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................26
CASE STUDY 4: MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS...............................................................................27
UK.................................................................................................................................................27
USA...............................................................................................................................................28
CASE: SC RHODE ISLAND............................................................................................................................28
MELVIN EISENBERG...................................................................................................................................29
CASE STUDY 6: RIGHT TO RECEIVE PERFORMANCE OR (ONLY) RIGHT TO DAMAGES?.....................31
CISG..............................................................................................................................................31
QUEBEC, NL, FIN, DK, IT....................................................................................................................31
GERMAN LAW...................................................................................................................................31
OWNER OF A PAINTING..............................................................................................................................31
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................31
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................32
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................32
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................32
PACKAGING MACHINES...............................................................................................................................32
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................33
FR..........................................................................................................................................................33
DE.........................................................................................................................................................33
PORTUGAL.......................................................................................................................................34
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................34
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................34
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................34
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................34
PAINTING.................................................................................................................................................35
STANDARD PACKAGING MACHINES................................................................................................................35
OPERA SINGER..........................................................................................................................................36
USA...............................................................................................................................................36
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................36
CASE STUDY 7: DAMAGES AND THE ROLE OF FAULT........................................................................38
BELGIUM AND FRANCE........................................................................................................................38
BELGIUM.................................................................................................................................................38
FRANCE...................................................................................................................................................38
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................39
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................39
CASE SUPREME COURT...............................................................................................................................40
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................41
COFRUMI CASE.........................................................................................................................................41
3
,NL.................................................................................................................................................41
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................41
BAXENDALE CASE......................................................................................................................................41
THOMAS BINGHAM...................................................................................................................................42
USA...............................................................................................................................................42
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................42
CISG..............................................................................................................................................42
PECL..............................................................................................................................................43
CASE STUDY 9: TERMINATION OR ALTERATION OF A CONTRACT IN THE EVENT OF A FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES?........................................................................................................45
EU DIRECTIVE ON PACKAGE TRAVEL.......................................................................................................45
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................45
DECISION ON EARTHQUAKE IN MEXICO..........................................................................................................46
AMTSGERICHT DACHAU CASE (TSUNAMI CASE)...............................................................................................46
AUSTRIA..........................................................................................................................................47
CASE 11/09/2001...................................................................................................................................47
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................48
NETHERLANDS...................................................................................................................................48
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................48
FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.........................................................................................................................49
BOSNIA, SLOVENIA, SERBIA.........................................................................................................................49
CROATIA, MONTENEGRO...........................................................................................................................49
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................49
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................49
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................50
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................50
CANAL DE CRAPONNE CASE.........................................................................................................................50
CODE CIVIL: AFTER 2016 REFORM................................................................................................................50
RAPPORT AU PRÉSIDENT.............................................................................................................................50
CASE 1998..............................................................................................................................................50
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................51
ENGLAND + WALES............................................................................................................................51
TAYLOR V. CALDWELL................................................................................................................................51
KRELL V. HENRY........................................................................................................................................51
OUR CASE................................................................................................................................................51
WATERWORKS CASE..................................................................................................................................52
PECL..............................................................................................................................................52
DCFR.............................................................................................................................................52
UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................................52
CHINA.............................................................................................................................................52
CASE STUDY 10: CONTRACTS AN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN MOVABLE PROPERTY.............53
4
,CISG..............................................................................................................................................53
FRANCE...........................................................................................................................................53
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................53
ITALY..............................................................................................................................................54
POLAND...........................................................................................................................................54
BELGIUM.........................................................................................................................................55
GERMANY........................................................................................................................................55
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................56
GREECE...........................................................................................................................................56
SOUTH AFRICA..................................................................................................................................56
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................57
SWISS SC................................................................................................................................................57
OUR SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................................58
NL.................................................................................................................................................58
SPAIN..............................................................................................................................................58
ROMAN LAW....................................................................................................................................58
ENGLAND AND WALES........................................................................................................................59
HC QB DEVISION DECISION.........................................................................................................................59
CASE STUDY 11: THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CROSS-BORDER CONTRACTS .........................................61
CISG..............................................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF A DE COURT......................................................................................................................61
PERSPECTIVE OF AN EN COURT....................................................................................................................62
SWITZERLAND...................................................................................................................................62
USA...............................................................................................................................................63
THE PARTIES’ CHOICE OF THE APPLICABLE SALES LAW..................................................................................63
THE CHOICE OF NON-STATE RULES OR “PRINCIPLES” OF LAW........................................................................65
ROME I...................................................................................................................................................65
CASE STUDY 12: THE FUTURE OF ECL...............................................................................................66
THE EU’S ROLE IN THE HARMONISATION OF ECL.......................................................................................66
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE EU TO ENACT A EUROPEAN CONTRACT CODE...............................................66
USA...............................................................................................................................................69
5
,CASE STUDY 1: OFFER OR INVITATION TO TREAT
College 19/03
Scenario: p. 55
ENGLISH LAW
DECISION 1
High Court = Court of first instance
We start with a case bc private law is not codified in England contract law remains largely
uncodified case law
This case deals with exposition of goods (flip knife) in shop window
Starting point = criminal statute did he offer the flip knife for sale by putting it in his window?
Very detailed exposure of the facts
Legal issue: exhibition of knife = offer for sale within the statute?
Literal interpretation of statute = starting point
Conclusion judge: in ordinary language it is for sale, but any statute must be looked at in the light of
the general law of the country
Method of interpretation of weapon act: literal interpretation + general contract law legislator put
in “offer for sale” and not “exposure for sale” but didn’t the legislator intend to prohibit putting
knives in the shop next step on the condiment: go into the purpose of the statute = no putting
knives in the shop window
P. 67: strong language (“absurd”)
Casus omissus: forgot to put in exposure
Can we fill the gap? No reluctant bc criminal statute
Judge turns to precedent (p 67 middle)
Bound by previous judgements: case of Keaton and Howard
o Judge decided that there was exposure + offering for sale
o question: why is our court not bound by this?
o Bound by ratio decidendae, not by obiter dictum
o ratio decidendae (reason that carries the decision) here = enough to say there was
exposure (= pillar decision)
o the fact that the court said there was an offer = obiter dictum
o conclusion: putting things in the shop window =/= an offer, but just an invitation to
making an offer
6
,They work with precedents: that’s why details are so important in giving the facts, bc you need to
find really similar case
CONCLUSION: the exposure of goods in the shop window would be considered as an invitation to
treat
DECISION 2
Pharmaceutical society
Self-service introduced in supermarkets
In this case: drugs exposed admin statute: forbidden to offer drugs for sale without supervision of
pharmacist pharmacist at cash desk
Is exposure of goods in shelves an offer or an invitation to treat?
If offer: statute violated
If ITT: not violated
When does the property in the goods pass: when the contract is formed judges: when putting it in
the trolley = too early
3rd contract maw argument (p70): English contract law: all invitations
US LAW
50 states
Federal US contract law? The union doesn’t have competence in contract law left to the states
50 systems of contract law, but not totally fragmented
Question US law restatement = they put the content in a black letter rule provide official
commentary references to court decisions coming from different states = first guidance
Same in Europe: compare ECL systems draw conclusions put them in a restatement
Very general rule: … =/= offer … super abstract + general official comment: it is possible to
make it an offer (communication: language of commitment)
DECISION: SC MINNESOTA
Advertisement: 1st come 1st serve
Products for ladies not meant for men
Man tried to buy it: ‘didn’t say it was not for men, I buy’
Is advertisement an offer? Language of commitment yes
Be careful: this is just Minnesota
7
,NY CASE
If we don’t make it an offer what else could it be?
Alt option: consumer protection rules: if advertisement is misleading may claim damages
= common law in a nutshell
SWITZERLAND
SW has codifications
Code of obligations = base look at this first
Conclusion of contract requires…
Our scenario: explicitly codified display of goods = offer; if customer says ‘I buy’, contract is
concluded
NUSSBERGER CASE
Ring exposed in shop window sales person forgot to put 1 of the 0s in the price customer
walked in and said ‘I buy’ it is bought
Avoiding contract by error?
Expose = offer
What about advertisements? Art. 7 code of obligations
Offer under Swiss law?
Not an offer under art. 7.2
Commentary: 7.1 harder to argue
Arguments: put it in red!! ‘as in other countries’ arguments for opposite solution
GERMAN LAW
(Why are job offers regarded as invitations to treat only? Employer wants to see the person he will
hire and talk to the person first)
BGB
Coded provision = starting point need to go into case law
Reasoning judgement: prevailing view
FRANCE
8
,French civil code
Provision are general need case law
DECISION 1
1 sentence: facts, history proceedings, arguments, decision why all in 1 sentence? La juge est la
bouche de la loi no margin of interpretation (French revolution: minimize the importance of
legislative reform) they kept the appearance of having no margin of interpretation: that’s why
they still use this style
Facts case
Question: was a contract formed?
Reasoning previous court quoted (Nancy): ‘an offering…treat’ rejected claim buyer to get the deal
done
‘Whereas…’: the court decides to annul decision of Cour d’appel de Nancy
Cour de Cassation: why is it not an offer?
CoA had a problem with fact that there was only 1 piece of land ‘cannot be treated as an offer’
How do they deal with problem of multiple acceptances: first come first serve first sentence (‘vis à
vis 1st person that accepts it’) Cass: it hasn’t been sold yet
Advertisement may as well be an offer
BELGIUM
Historic moment: introduction
French: start reforming their code BE has decided to put into force the first genuine civil law code
(new)
The new books come into force one book after the other and replace the old ones
(Still) similar to France
Advertisements, goods in shop windows = all offers, except when we find a reservation
ITALY
Similar to BE: first codice civile close to FR model
1942: merge FR and DE law in a modern code
Code = starting point, but also look at case law
9
, Bonus of having a code: even if it’s very general: it tells you a little bit about the intention of the
legislator + starting point + the code structures the legal material commentary: directs you to
relevant case law
DE civil code assumed to be the most sophisticated structure CC (IT) similar
Answer to our scenario: advertisements = general invitations to treat; offers, display of goods =
general offers
DENMARK
They don’t have a codifications special laws
Contract law act
Answer to 1 of the problems we have dealt with (argument of UK judge: buyer can change their mind
so contract isn’t formed): exposure of goods = an offer, while the UK judge said it wasn’t DK: yes;
IT: yes answer: contract is formed and offer is accepted when he puts the good(s) at cash desk
NEDERLAND
Something is different
HOFLAND CASE
‘I want to sell, but not to you’ was the advertisement an offer?
NL law: it depends on the object = different solution
Specific good offered for sale = invitation to treat
Offer a good that you have in stock (goods still available) = offer
Why the difference? You don’t have a problem running out of stock
When you offer a specific good, you might want to negotiate (e.g. a house)
POLAND
?
YUGOSLAVIA
Swiss approach
Particularity: 256 section 2
HOW MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
Make a table per country with the options to solve our problem
10
